Clean Elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Clean Elections" (variously called, "Clean Money," "Voter-Owned Elections," or "Fair Elections") is term used to describe a particular system of government financing of political campaigns used in a small number of states and local political jurisdictions in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts. However, substantial portions of the Vermont system were found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Randall v. Sorrell, and in Massachusetts the system was repealed after an advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against using government funds to pay for political campaigns. Clean Elections was passed by normal legislative means in Connecticut in December, 2005. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections.

In 2008 a Clean elections bill, the California Fair Elections Act (AB583) passed the California Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. To take effect it must be approved by voters initiative in June 2010. An earlier Clean Elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by 74.3% against to 25.7% in favor.

Another Clean Elections ballot initiative in Alaska failed by a 65% to 35% margin in August 2008, even though groups supporting the issue vastly outspent opponents.[1]

Under a Clean Elections system, candidates wishing to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.

Because candidates may refuse government funding and continue to rely on voluntary contributions without spending caps, supporters argue, and some lower courts have held, that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech but also affirmed that elections can be publicly financed. See section on "Differences from traditional reforms," below.

Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. Not surprisingly, most candidates take the subsidies rather than compete under the resulting handicap of raising voluntary contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators take the government money.[citation needed] In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house. In 2006 both the major (Republican and Democratic) candidates for Arizona Governor used tax financing.

Contents

[edit] Differences from traditional reforms

Clean Elections is a form of Campaign Finance Reform.

Like traditional campaign finance laws that sought to retrict spending and place caps on campaign donations, Clean Elections laws include restrictions on donations and spending but supplement them by providing qualified candidates with a pre-determined tax subsidy with which to run their campaigns. Candidates participating in a Clean Elections system are required to meet certain qualification criteria, such as collecting a number of signatures and small contributions (generally determined by statute and set at $5 in both Maine and Arizona) before the candidate can receive public support. In most Clean Elections plans, these qualifying contributions must be given by constituents. To receive the government campaign subsidy, "Clean Candidates" must forgo all other fundraising and accept no other private or personal funds.

In order to comply with Buckely v. Valeo, Clean Elections laws allow candidates to opt-out of the system and fund their campaigns with private contributions. However, candidates who decline the public subsidy in favor or private contributions are subjected to severe restrictions on fundraising and additional reporting requirements. Moreover, publicly financed candidates who are outspent by a privately funded candidate normally receive additional funds (sometimes called rescue funds) to match their privately funded opponent, up to a cap, with the intent of assuring that a candidate who refuses the taxpayer subsidy cannot gain a substantial financial advantage.

Some critics have argued that the rescue funds provision amounts to rigging the system so that participation is not truly voluntary. In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit struck down a similar clause in a Minnesota campaign finance law, but three other United States Courts of Appeal, for the First, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits, have rejected such claims. [2] The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, however, cast doubt on the constitutionality of Clean Elections systems that provide extra money to participating candidates to offset higher spending by their opponents. Davis held that the state's interest in equalizing the resources available to candidates was insufficient to justify the application of different contribution limits to different candidates, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although Davis did not directly address Clean Elections systems, following Davis a federal court has held that that portion of the Arizona law providing rescue funds is unconstitutional [3]

[edit] Effectiveness

A 2003 study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) requested by Congress as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002, found that the clean elections system had failed to produce measurable benefits in the two election cycles run under the system in both Maine and Arizona. The average number of candidates per district, percentage of contested races, incumbency rates, incumbency victory margins, perceptions of interest group influence among candidates and citizens, and voter participation did not change notably. Campaign spending decreased in Maine but increased in Arizona and independent expenditures increased in both states. 60% of Maine and 37% of Arizona voters were unaware of the public financing program. The study concluded that "with ... only one election from which to observe most statewide races, it is too early to draw causal linkages".[4]

A 2006 study of the 2004 and 2002 campaigns by political scientists Mayer, Werner, and Williams of the University of Wisconsin--Madison argued that the GAO "understate[d] the reforms' impact, in part by making some unusual methodological choices and jettisoning valuable data." They found that the candidate pool and competitiveness increased significantly, while the incumbency rate dropped significantly.[5] A 2007 update, however, found that in the 2006 campaign found competitiveness continued to increase slightly but reelection rates "returned to pre-reform levels". The number of at least nominally contested races also continued to increase, reaching 100% in Maine. Mayer, Werner and Williams also found that women were much more likely than men to accept public funding but this had no effect on the gender composition of the legislature.[6] A study by the non-partisan, privately funded Clean Elections Institute[7] found that the number and geographic, economic, and ethnic diversity of campaign contributors increased significantly, with contributors almost quadrupling, contributions from people with incomes below $40,000 increasing by 40% and contributions from Latinos increasing significantly.[8] However, a 2008 study by the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Competitive Politics concluded that the process of gathering small contributions needed to qualify for public funding still relied heavily on interest groups.[9] Another 2008 study by the Center for Competitive Politics of clean elections programs in Maine and Arizona found that neither state had seen a decline in legislators with “traditional” [law and business] backgrounds in the eight years since the campaign laws were first implemented.[10]

Other studies conducted by the Center for Competitive Politics found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish other stated goals, including electing more women ([3]), reducing government spending (in fact in both states government spending grew more rapidly after the enactment of clean elections) ([4]), or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation. ([5])

A 2006 study by the Goldwater Institute found that "incumbency rates have remained near 100% [while] the number of candidates fell substantially ... from 247 to 195. Moreover, the law has not increased minor or third-party participation in politics, and Arizona campaigns remain every bit as hard-edged." However, according to the Clean Elections Institute, the number of legislative candidates increased from 135 in 1998 ([6]), the last year before Clean Elections, to 188 in 2004, as reported in the Goldwater study -- a 40% increase. In 2006 there were 204 legislative candidates ([7]), a 51% increase over the pre-Clean Elections numbers.[11]

In 2008, a study released by the non-partisan non-profit organization Public Campaign, examined the demographic profile of $5 qualifying contribution donors in Clean Elections gubernatorial campaigns in Arizona over the course of the 2002 and 2006 elections, comparing and contrasting them with contributions raised by candidates running with funding from private sources — more than 67,000 contributions in all. The data were analyzed by zip code alongside U.S. Census data to determine the racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic characteristics of donors. The study, titled All Over The Map, found that Arizona’s qualifying contribution donors are more diverse racially, ethnically, economically, and geographically than donors giving to candidates who choose to rely on private fundraising. In nearly every category, Clean Elections $5 donors were more representative of the state's population than were donors to privately funded campaigns.

[edit] Supporters

SB 752, the Fair Elections Now Act, calling for Clean Elections in U.S. senate campaigns, is sponsored in the 111th Congress (2009-10) by Senators: Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) ([12]. A companion bill, H.R. 1826, has been introduced in the House, sponsored by John Larson (D-Ct), Chellie Pingree (D-Me), and Walter Jones (R-NC). Similar bills were introduced in each House the 110th Congress but did not move out of Committee. Others who have endorsed clean elections include:

[edit] References

  1. ^ Anchorage Daily News.
  2. ^ [1] "Davis v. FEC and the Constitutionality of Clean Elections Systems," notes 14-18.
  3. ^ [2] McComish v. Brewer opinion.
  4. ^ Early Experience of Two States that Offer Full Public Funding of Political Campaigns, study by United States Government Accounting Office.
  5. ^ Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition? | Public Campaign Library
  6. ^ Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender
  7. ^ Clean Elections Institute
  8. ^ Reclaiming Democracy in Arizona, study by the Arizona Clean Elections Institute
  9. ^ Study on New Jersey Clean Elections Contributors, by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP)
  10. ^ Legislative Occupations: Change or Status Quo After Clean Elections?, study by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP)
  11. ^ Campaign Promises: A Six-Year Review of Arizona's Experiment with Taxpayer-financed Campaigns, study by the Goldwater Institute.
  12. ^ S. 752: Fair Elections Now Act (GovTrack.us)
  13. ^ John Edwards for President-One Democracy Initiative: Returning Washington To Regular People
  14. ^ Sen. Mccain Embraces Clean Elections In Arizona Big Boost To Public Financing Seen | Public Campaign
  15. ^ Dialing for Clean Dollars
  16. ^ YouTube - Candidate Challenge: John McCain
  17. ^ "Full public financing must be the ultimate goal of our reform effort.", State of the State 2007

[edit] External links

[edit] Legislation

[edit] Studies

[edit] Related organizations

[edit] Press coverage

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections"
Personal tools